Fabian's Blog

The United Kindom and Europe

Tuesday 13th December 2011 9:35 PM

Much is going to be written in the months and years to come about Prime Minister Cameron's decision to veto the EU treaty designed to overcome the problems in countries using the Euro. I find it distressing that the arguments are presented in a manner similar to that describing combatants in a prize fight - Cameron battling with his Party's Eurosceptics - Sarkozy struggling with Merkel over the role of the European Central Bank - MPs and Eurosceptics demanding that there is another referendum over whether or not we stay in Europe.

Britain, Europe and indeed many economies in the world are today in a very precarious position and the issues are so complex and finely balanced that I am immediately distrustful of anyone who stands up and argues a simple point of view. Monetary crisis, our trading with Europe and the rest of the world and indeed the viability of the UK economy and government are not matters that are helped in any way by tub-thumping rhetoric.

In this political maelstrom it would be unwise to forget the reason why the European Union ideal was first created - quite simply it was to ensure peace. For up to one hundred years before the end of World War II, France and Germany had quarrelled over the minerals and resources in Alsace and Lorraine, the two regions next to a long-disputed border. Former European rulers, not least Hitler, deliberately mixed up the concepts of ethnicity and citizenship to capitalize on confused loyalties and feed political ambitions. At the end of the war in 1945 the European Union was conceived as the way to make countries tightly linked and interdependent one with another so that future conflict became not just impossible but inconceivable. Again, I am always mistrustful when I hear politicians from whatever country or political party rant on in words showing that they are ignorant of the ideals of peace.

If, as it now appears, we may find many decisions being taken by a group of European countries in our absence, not only do we risk our views being sidelined, it could feed the flames of national stereotyping and even racial prejudice in ways we cannot predict. In our attempts to protect the profits machine of the City of London and maintain it as the hub of world finance, we risk our neighbours in Europe turning elsewhere for the generation of capital and even building their own institutions to rival ours. What price then for this precious illusion of British Sovereignty? If we vent our frustration at such matters as the Working Time Directive, the Fisheries Policy or even the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights and reject them, what might this be saying about how our national character could be changing? Compassion, fairness, humanity and justice are our values and those at the heart of the European ideal. I do not want to see those eroded.

So we are in the dangerous position of conflicting views on fiscal remedies and prudence needed for today, overturning what I believe has been so carefully nurtured by Europeans working together since 1945. To those who demand we get out of Europe I would say quite simply, "Go and live and try to work for a time in somewhere like Morocco or the Ukraine, countries close to Europe but outside and show me that is better than what you enjoy today in Britain". To those who demand a referendum, I challenge them to argue in front of the employees of British Aerospace (makers of the Airbus) or the workers on the Channel Ferries, both groups amongst the many companies in the UK who understand full well just how important Europe is for our future prosperity.

I am not a historian but I am aware of how some have regarded the intransigence of George III as the reason why America severed its links with England and this changed world history, many might say to our long-term disadvantage. Has Cameron now done something equally grave? I hope not, but I am fearful.